Hd Hyundai Infracore China Co Ltd v. Li Zhiwei

HCRE 84/2024 & HCMP 785/2024
(Heard Together)

[2025] HKCFI 5714

HCRE 84/2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT CASE NO 84 OF 2024

_______________________

______________________

______________________

AND

HCMP 785/2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 785 OF 2024

____________________

______________________

______________________

(Heard Together)

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.Introduction

1.1The Plaintiff (“HD Hyundai”) commenced HCRE 84/2024 (“HCRE 84”) against the Respondent (“Li”) by its ex-parte originating summons dated 20 December 2024, by which it seeks to register a part of the enforcement ruling (“Relevant Part”) of the Intermediate People’s Court of Wuhai City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (“IPC”), dated 23 October 2024[1] (“2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling”) as a judgment of the Hong Kong court pursuant to the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance Cap 645 (“Ordinance”).

1.2The Relevant Part of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling sought to be registered states as follows:

“现責令李志伟 [Li]… 向被害单位艾奇蒂现代迪万伦工程机械有限公司 (原名斗山工程机械(中国)有限公司) [HD Hyundai] 退赔人民币 162061811.37 元。”

1.3On 12 March 2025, Master Hui dismissed the ex-parte application (“12/3/25 Order”). On 17 March 2025, HD Hyundai’s lodged an appeal against the 12/3/25 Order by its Notice of Appeal (“NOA”).

1.4The NOA came before me on 11 June 2025. As canvassed below, a number of issues arose at that hearing and it was adjourned to 26 August 2025 (“Adjourned Hearing”) to allow HD Hyundai to apply for leave to adduce further evidence to address those issues. By its summons dated 22 August 2025 (“Summons”), HD Hyundai applied to adduce new factual and expert evidence.

1.5Separately, in HCMP 785/2024 (“HCMP 785”) commenced on 13 May 2024, HD Hyundai sought, and was granted, an interlocutory Mareva injunction against Li in aid of proceedings under case reference (2023) 内 03執 46 號 ("2023 Criminal Enforcement Proceedings") and/or other related proceedings in the IPC and/or in aid of enforcement proceedings (then) to be commenced in Hong Kong to enforce in Hong Kong any Mainland judgments, rulings and/or orders arising from the 2023 Criminal Enforcement Proceedings. The interlocutory injunction was first granted by K Yeung J on 17 May 2024 and thereafter continued on a number of occasions. By the order made by Mr Recorder Victor Dawes SC on 6 August 2025, HCMP 785 was ordered to be heard by me at the Adjourned Hearing.

1.6At the hearings, I was ably assisted by Mr Jin Pao SC (leading Mr Byron Chiu) for HD Hyundai.

1.7This is my decisions on the NOA, the Summons and HCMP 785.

2.Factual background

2.1In around November 2014, HD Hyundai fell victim of a fraud perpetrated by Li and other accomplices (collectively “Fraudsters”). As a result of the fraud, HD Hyundai was defrauded RMB 190 million.

2.2In around 2015, the Fraudsters were arrested in the Mainland. Investigation showed that part of the defrauded sums was transferred to Li’s bank or securities accounts in Hong Kong.

2.3Between January to April 2017, the Fraudsters were tried before the IPC. They were convicted in December 2017 by (2021) 内03刑初3号刑事判决书 (“2021 IPC Criminal Judgment”).

2.4On 26 December 2022, the Higher People’s Court of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (“HPC”) dismissed, inter alia, Li’s appeal in (2022) 内刑终132号《刑事裁定书》(“2022 Final Criminal Judgment”) whereby:

(1)  Li was sentenced to imprisonment until 1 July 2030;

(2)  The Fraudsters were ordered to (jointly and severally) return RMB 190 million to HD Hyundai.

2.5Following the 2022 Final Criminal Judgment, the IPC took steps to enforce against the assets of the Fraudsters in the Mainland via the 2023 Criminal Enforcement Proceedings.

2.6On 17 July 2023, the IPC handed down an enforcement ruling (执行裁定书) (“2023 Criminal Enforcement Ruling”) stating that it was only able to locate and recover around RMB 24.9 million and could not locate any other assets of the Fraudsters in the Mainland, but stated that the enforcement proceedings may be resumed if there was new information to facilitate recovery:

“依照《最高人民法院关于执行案件立案、结案若干问题的意见》第十六条第（五）项、《最高人民法院关于适用 ＜中华人民共和国民事诉讼法＞ 的解释》第五百一十七条之规定，裁定如下：

终结本院 (2023) 内03执46号案件的本次执行程序。

发现被执行人有可供执行财产或者财产线索的，本院依法恢复执行。”

2.7Upon the commencement of the Ordinance in January 2024, HD Hyundai applied to the IPC, and the IPC acceded, to resume the enforcement proceedings. On 23 October 2024, the IPC issued the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling. The pertinent parts are as follows:

“因被执行人李志伟 [Li]、李静为、康棹未履行上述法律文书所确定的义务，本院立案执行。执行过程中，本院巳扣划赃款并返还给被害单位人民币 24929888. 63 元、价值合计人民币 3008300 元的车辆（蒙 BDS170 奥迪轿车、京J H3297 埃尔法客车、蒙 B88191梅赛德斯－奔驰轿车）三台。生效判决认定责令退赔的人民币1.9亿元，截至目前，共计执行到位人民币 27938188.63 元(24929888.63 元＋ 3008300元），尚有人民币 162061811. 37 元未向被害单位 [HD Hyundai] 退赔到位。现贵令李志伟、李静为、康棹向被害单位艾奇蒂现代迪万伦工程机械有限公司（原名斗山工程机械（中国）有限公司）)退赔人民币 162061811. 37 元 [ie the Relevant Part]。 依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百五十三条、第二百五十四条、第二百五十五条、《最高人民法院关于适用（中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》第四百八十五条规定、 《最高人民法院关于人民法院执行工作若干问题的规定（试行）》第 28 条、第 29 条规定，裁定如下：

冻结、查封、扣押、划拨、提取被执行人李志伟、李静为、康棹名下的动产、不动产、银行存款及其他财产权益，所冻结、查封、扣押、划拨、提取的财产以人民币 162061811.37元为限。

根据相关法律规定，银行存款冻结期限为一年，动产的查封期限为两年，不动产及其他财产权的查封期限为三年。

对无法分割的不动产以及其他无法直接体现资产价值的财产可全部查封，冻结。

如需要续行冻结、查封的，申请执行人需在冻结、查封期限届满前三十日提出续行冻结、查封的书面申请。逾期提出申请的法律后果由申请执行人自行承担。被执行人履行完毕生效法律文书确定的义务，可解除对涉案财产的冻结、查封措施。

本裁定立即执行。” (emphasis added)

2.8Contemporaneous with the issuance of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling, the IPC also issued a (执行通知书) to the Fraudsters on 23 October 2024 (“2024 Criminal Enforcement Notice”) in, inter alia, the following terms:

“… 截至目前，本案共计执行到位人民币 27938188. 63 元，因被执行人未在规定的期限内宪全履行生效法律文书确定责令退赔人民币1. 9 亿元义务，故现尚有人民币162061811. 37元未向被害单位艾奇蒂现代迪万伦工程机械有限公司（原名斗山工程机械（中国）有限公司）[HD Hyundai]退赔到位。本院于2024 年 10 月 22 日立案，并作出 (2024) 内 03 执恢 51 号执行裁定书 [the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Order]。根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百四十七条、第二百五十一条、第二百六十条的规定，责令你们自动履行法律文书所确定的向被害单位艾奇蒂现代迪万伦工程机械有限公司（原名斗山工程机械（中国）有限公司）退赔人民币 16206181 1. 37元的义务并向本院如实申报可供执行财产。逾期不履行，本院将强制执行。” (emphasis added)

3.The relevant provisions of the Ordinance

3.1Section 10(1) of the Ordinance sets out the requirements for registration:

“Subject to section 11 , a judgment creditor under a Mainland Judgment in a civil or commercial matter may apply to the Court for a registration order to register the Judgment, or any part of the Judgment, if—

(a) the Judgment—

(i) was given on or after the commencement date * of this Ordinance [ie 29 January 2024]; and

(ii) is effective in the Mainland; and

(b) the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) the Judgment or part requires the payment of a sum of money, or the performance of an act, by a party to the original proceedings for the Judgment;

(ii) a default in complying with the requirement occurred within 2 years before the date of the application; and

(iii) the default has not been made good as at the date of the application.”

3.2Section 13(1) of the Ordinance provides:

“On a registration application made in relation to a Mainland Judgment in a civil or commercial matter or any part of such a Judgment, the Court may order the Judgment, or any part of the Judgment, to be registered in accordance with this Division if it is satisfied that the application is made in compliance with sections 10 and 11 .”

3.3By section 2 of the Ordinance, a “Mainland Judgment”:

“means a judgment, ruling, conciliatory statement or order of payment given or made by a court in the Mainland, but does not include a ruling given in respect of an interim measure”.

3.4The meaning of “Mainland Judgments in civil or commercial matters” is defined under section 3(1) of the Ordinance to be as follows:

“For the purposes of this Ordinance, a Mainland Judgment in a civil or commercial matter is a Mainland Judgment—

(a) that—

(i) is given in proceedings that are civil or commercial in nature under the law of the Mainland; or

(ii) is given in proceedings that are criminal in nature under the law of the Mainland, and contains an order for the payment of a sum of money in respect of compensation or damages by a party to the proceedings; and

(b) that is not an excluded judgment[2].”

3.5Section 14 of the Ordinance provides that a judgment falling with section 3(1)(a)(ii) may be registered to the extent of an order for the payment of a sum of money in respect of compensation or damages by a party to the proceedings.

3.6The “effectiveness” of a Mainland Judgment is defined under section 8(1) of the Ordinance:

“For the purposes of this Ordinance, a Mainland Judgment is effective in the Mainland—

(a) if it is enforceable in the Mainland; and

(b) if—

(i) it is a Mainland Judgment given by the Supreme People’s Court;

(ii) it is a Mainland Judgment of the second instance given by a High People’s Court or an Intermediate People’s Court; or

(iii) it is a Mainland Judgment of the first instance given by a High People’s Court, an Intermediate People’s Court or a Primary People’s Court, and—

(A) no appeal is allowed from the Judgment according to the law of the Mainland; or

(B) the time limit for appeal in respect of the Judgment has expired according to the law of the Mainland and no appeal has been filed.”

4.HD Hyundai’s case and the issues arising therefrom

4.1HD Hyundai says that the Relevant Part of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling meets the statutory requirements for registration for the following reasons.

4.2First, it is said that the Relevant Part is a ruling and/or order of payment given by a court in the Mainland, namely the IPC. The Relevant Part therefore complies with section 2 of the Ordinance.

4.3Secondly, the Relevant Part falls within the description of a “Mainland Judgment in civil or commercial matters” since (1) it was given or made in proceedings that are criminal in nature under the law of the Mainland and (2) it is an order for the payment of a sum of money in respect of compensation or damages by Li as a party to the proceedings. The foregoing therefore are compliant with section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Ordinance.

4.4Thirdly, the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling was given on 23 October 2024, ie after the Ordinance’s commencement date of 29 January 2024. The requirement of section 10(1)(a)(i) is therefore met.

4.5Fourthly, the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling is effective in the Mainland as it is not appealable. The effect of HD Hyundai’s expert evidence is that the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling falls under category (11) of Article 157 of the Civil Procedural Law of the Mainland (“CPL”), which is a category of legal document against which no appeal lies. Article 157 of the CPL enumerates 11 categories of documents and expressly provides that an appeal may only be filed against a ruling on the matters under categories 1 to 3[3]. The condition in section 8(1)(b)(iii)(A), HD Hyundai argues, is therefore satisfied.

4.6Fifthly, the Relevant Part satisfies the requirements under section 10(1)(b) of the Ordinance since Li’s default in comply with the Relevant Part occurred within 2 years of the commencement of HCRE 84 in December 2024.

4.7I have no difficulty in accepting the 3^rd to 5^th propositions advanced by HD Hyundai. For reasons analogous to those of Master Hui, my concerns at the hearing on 11 June 2025 were as follows.

4.8In gist, there is an issue of whether the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling falls within the definition of a “Mainland Judgment”. The pertinent parts of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling has been reproduced at §2.7 above. It is notable that the Relevant Part appears before the words “裁定如下”, and as such, one way of reading the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling is that it only adjudged that various freezing or asset-preservation measures would be imposed, up to a monetary limit of RMB 162,061,811.37. As such, an issue arose whether the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling could be read as simply being a “ruling given in respect of an interim measure” and therefore either was not an order for payment or was simply a ruling given in respect of an interim measure and in either case not registrable. For completeness, whilst the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Notice is in clearer terms, HCRE 84 only seeks to register the Relevant Part, not the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Notice.

4.9The above is consonant with the learned Master’s reasons for making the 12/3/25 Order, namely that the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling was merely an outcome of the enforcement proceedings of the order arising from the 2021 IPC Criminal Judgment and 2022 Final Criminal Judgment (collectively “Underlying Criminal Judgments”). HD Hyundai therefore could not seek to register the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling to have the same effect as the registration of the Underlying Criminal Judgments (“Master’s Reasons”).

4.10By the Summons, HD Hyundai seeks leave to adduce and rely on further factual and expert evidence (collectively “New Evidence”).

4.11As a matter of further factual evidence, HD Hyundai has obtained an explanatory note (情况说明) from the IPC dated 4 August 2025 clarifying the nature of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling (“2025 Explanatory Note”). It is in the following terms:

“本院于 2024 年 10 月 23 日作出的 (2024) 内 03 执恢 51 号执行裁定书 [2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling]，责令李志伟 [Li]、李静为、康哗向被害单位斗山工程机械（中国）有限公司（现更名为艾奇蒂现代迪万伦工程机械有限公司）) [HD Hyundai]退赔人民币 16206181 1. 37 元损失 [Relevant Part]。

本裁定是本院依据执行和退赔情况作出的新的生效法律文书，依法具有强制执行效力。” (emphasis added)

4.12As a matter of further expert evidence, HD Hyundai has procured an expert report (“Further Expert Report”) from Mr Jiang Zhe (“Mr Jiang”), a partner at Zhong Lun Law Firm in Beijing. According to the Further Expert Report, it is Mr Jiang’s opinion that:

(1)  The 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling is an effective ruling issued by a Mainland Court and qualifies as a legally effective judgment under the Arrangement of the Supreme People's Court on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“New Arrangement”);

(2)  The Relevant Part is a court order directly enforceable on Li;

(3)  The 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling is an independent, standalone ruling.

5.The applicable principles

5.1Mr Pao submits that, as a matter of legislative history, the Ordinance was enacted to give effect to the New Arrangement. Indeed, the Ordinance and the New Arrangement were put in place to gradually phase out the previous Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance Cap 597 (“Old Ordinance”) and the 2006 Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region pursuant to Choice of Court Agreements between Parties Concerned (“Old Arrangement”).

5.2Mr Pao says that the Ordinance serves the purpose of facilitating the enforcement in Hong Kong of the broad scope of judgments in civil and commercial matters given in the Mainland, as defined in the Ordinance. As was the position under the Old Ordinance, the mechanism is intended to be straightforward and with a high degree of certainty, without the need of the Hong Kong court to review the evidence or findings of the Mainland courts, or to review the reasons given by the Mainland courts. He refers to the following legislative materials:

(1)  The Government had stated that the Ordinance is “aimed to facilitate the enforcement of Mainland Judgments in Hong Kong in a user-friendly way without the need to go through re-litigation”: Minutes (dated 12 August 2022) of the Bills Committee meeting held on 17 May 2022 at §34;

(2)  At §10 of a letter dated 15 July 2022 to the Bills Committee, the Government stated that it was an important policy consideration that the registration mechanism provided for under the Bill should balance the competing interests of judgment creditors and those persons against whom the Mainland judgments may be enforced and hence the mechanism should be simple with a high degree of certainty.

5.3In the context of the Old Ordinance and the Old Arrangement, Foshan Nanhai Branch of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd v Foshan Ruifeng Petroleum and Chemical Fuel Co Ltd [2019] 2 HKLRD 478 is an authority which reflects the above considerations:

“[39] The purpose of the [Old Ordinance] must be to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of Mainland Judgments by a simple and quick process of registration on the basis of a judgment already made by a competent and recognized court. Registration should be in terms of what is readily apparent on the face of the Mainland judgment, without the necessity of the Hong Kong Court scrutinizing the evidence or documents in the Mainland proceedings, or conducting a mini trial of the evidence as to the correct sum allowed and ordered to be payable by the judgment debtor.” (emphasis added)

5.4The above observations were approved by the Court of Appeal in 湖州升華金融服務有限公司 (Huzhou Shenghua Financial Services Company Limited) v 杭品生活科技股份有限公司 (Hang Pin Living Technology Company Limited) [2025] HKCA 434 at §43.

5.5I accept Mr Pao’ submission that the above approach I the context of the Old Ordinance is equally applicable to applications for registration under the Ordinance.

6.Analysis

6.1The issues identified at §§4.8 and 4.9 above require a determination of the following issues:

(1)  Whether the Relevant Part was an operative part of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling since, on its face, the order that was made was simply the imposition of freezing and asset-preservation measures;

(2)  Whether the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling is a standalone ruling independent of the Underlying Criminal Judgments.

6.2The starting point is that, by the 2025 Explanatory Note, the IPC has answered both issues in the affirmative.

6.3The position set out cursorily in the 2025 Explanatory Note is supported by the Further Expert Report.

6.4First, as explained by Mr Jiang, the enforcement proceedings had been terminated by the 2023 Criminal Enforcement Ruling (§2.6 above). On the application by HD Hyundai, the IPC decided to recommence the enforcement proceedings, as recorded in the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Notice (本院于2024 年 10 月 22 日立案，并作出 (2024) 内 03 执恢 51 号执行裁定书 [the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Order]).

6.5The 11 categories set out at Article 157 of the CPL (§4.5 above) are “(1) refusal to entertain a case, (2) objection to the jurisdiction of court, (3) dismissal of a complaint, (4) preservation and preliminary enforcement, (5) approval or disapproval of withdrawal of an action, (6) suspension or termination of an action, (7) correction of clerical errors in a written judgment, (8) suspension or termination of execution, (9) cancellation of or refusal to enforce an arbitration award, (10) refusal to enforce a document on creditor's rights that has been rendered enforceable by a notary agency and (11) other matters to be settled by a ruling. As the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling recommenced the enforcement proceedings, it falls within the collective scope of categories (8) and (11). As I understand Mr Jiang’s evidence, whilst category (8) expressly provides that an order suspension or termination of execution is a ruling, an order to recommence enforcement proceedings, whilst not falling within the scope of the first 10 categories, must necessarily falls under catch-all category (11).

6.6Secondly, Mr Jiang explains that the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling is not only a “preservation ruling”, for the following reasons:

(1)  The code in the case number of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling is “执恢” (resumed enforcement). The codes in case numbers for preservation rulings are either “执保” (property preservation for enforcement) or “财保” (non-litigious property preservation);

(2)  The 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling includes not only preservation but an order for the transfer (划拨) of assets belonging to Li. The power to order transfer of assets is derived from Articles 253 and 255 of the CPL, which as Mr Pao points out, are articles under Chapter XXI (Execution Measures). Conversely, under Chapter IX (Preservation and Preliminary Execution) of the CPL, for example Articles 103 and 106, there is no power to order any transfer of assets.

6.7Thirdly, it is Mr Jiang’s opinion that the Relevant Part is not a recap of the Underlying Criminal Judgments but an independent standalone ruling for the following reasons:

(1)  Although enforcement rulings are made based on findings in a court judgment, they cannot be viewed simplistically as mere repetitions of the original judgments. The enforcement procedure is independent of the trial procedure. Enforcement rulings issued during enforcement may determine and address facts beyond the judgment’s content, and occur after the judgment takes effect;

(2)  Importantly, in the Reply to the Request for Instructions on the Handling of the Original Enforcement Ruling after the Retrial Ruling After a Retrial Judgment Is Issued ((2005) 执他字第25号), the Supreme People's Court ruled that "an enforcement ruling that has taken legal effect shall not be revoked solely due to the revocation of the legal instrument upon which the enforcement was based…. If the amount already enforced does not exceed the amount specified in the new enforcement basis instrument, the People's Court shall continue the enforcement."

(3)  The foregoing proposition is supported in Case No. (2024) Nei 0522 Zhi Yi 118, the People's Court of Kerqinzuoyihouqi, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region in which it was held that "enforcement cases possess a degree of independence, meaning that an enforcement ruling takes legal effect upon its issuance or service, and persons subject to enforcement shall perform their obligations in accordance with the contents specified in the enforcement notice and the enforcement ruling. Failure to do so may result in compulsory measures being taken pursuant to the enforcement ruling. Once an enforcement case is duly registered and an enforcement ruling is issued, it becomes a separate case independent of the original trial process. Even if the effective legal instrument is found to be erroneous, the validity of the enforcement ruling remains unaffected. The parties may assert their substantive rights through other appropriate procedures. In other words, enforcement notices, enforcement rulings, and decisions for dishonesty are conclusive upon issuance and may not be arbitrarily revoked".

6.8Fourthly, Mr Jiang opines that, the Relevant Part is an operative part of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling, despite it appearing before the words “裁定如下”, for the following reasons:

(1)  Under PRC laws, legal instruments (including court judgments) should be interpreted using interpretative methods such as textual interpretation, systematic, interpretation, and purposive interpretation;

(2)  As a matter of textual interpretation, the Relevant Part is self-evidently an order for payment;

(3)  As a matter of purposive interpretation, the Relevant Part is an order for payment made in order to enforce a judgment debt owed by the Fraudsters including Li;

(4)  As a matter of systematic interpretation, the entire document should be read holistically and a distinction should not be made between content above or below the words “裁定如下”. The Supreme People’s Court also adopted a similar position. For instance, in Case No. (2020) Zui Gao Fa Xing Shen 13035, the Supreme People’s Court acknowledged that content not expressly stated in the main text of a judgment may still constitute valid and binding order by the Court.

6.9In my view, the New Evidence collectively has adequately answered the concerns identified at §§4.8-4.9 above.

7.The Summons

7.1It follows from the above analysis that the New Evidence is relevant, probative and cogent and therefore satisfies the second and third Ladd v Marshall criteria, namely the evidence must be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, though it need not be decisive, and the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed / apparently credible, though it need not be incontrovertible.

7.2As to the first Ladd v Marshall requirement, namely the evidence sought to be adduced could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the hearing below, I accept Mr Pao’s submission that, in the specific circumstances of the present case, I should conclude that it has been met, for the following reasons:

(1)  This is an appeal from a Master to a Judge in chambers in respect of an ex-parte application for registration (the nature of which would require the Applicant to continuously make full and frank disclosure including any new materials that has come to the Applicant’s attention);

(2)  The New Evidence currently sought to be adduced is to address discrete and specific aspects of Mainland law raised by the court at the hearing on 11 June 2025;

(3)  Ultimately, I am deciding one of the first cases on the registration of a PRC ruling under the Ordinance, especially one where the relevant ruling is a payment order given in Mainland criminal proceedings to which the intended recipient is not a party. The questions raised are material to its determination of the live issues, and it is in response to these questions that the new evidence is adduced.

7.3I therefore accede to the Summons and I make a costs order that the costs of the Summons should be in the cause of the NOA.

8.Conclusion on the NOA

8.1For the above reasons, the 12/3/25 Order is set aside and I am satisfied that I should make an order in terms of the NOA §§1-3.

8.2In terms of the order to be made, by reference to the draft order provided to me, two matters arise.

8.3First under PD 38 §9, if the sum payable under the Mainland Judgment is in a currency other than the Hong Kong dollar, the applicant is required to provide the exchange rate prevailing on the date of registration (see section 19(2) of the Ordinance). Accordingly, if the application for registration is granted, the applicant shall provide evidence of the prevailing exchange rate. HD Hyundai is to provide evidence of the exchange rate prevailing as at the date of this decision.

8.4Secondly, under section 18(2) of the Ordinance, the reasonable costs of, or incidental to, the registration should also be registered as part of the registration order. In this regard:

(1)  Master Hui did not make any costs order as he dismissed HD Hyundai’s ex-parte application;

(2)  The Statements of Costs lodged by HD Hyundai including the costs incurred for the application made before Master Hui is in the total sum in excess of HK$2.15 million;

(3)  On any view, the costs are excessive;

(4)  Further, I am of the view that the New Evidence has materially affected the outcome of the NOA;

(5)  I have therefore applied appropriate discounts to the costs claimed;

(6)  In my view, the reasonable costs under section 18(2)(d) of the Ordinance, on a broad-brush basis, is HK$1,400,000 (which is inclusive of counsel’s fees for attending the 2 hearings before me at HK$915,000).

8.5HD Hyundai is to resubmit a further draft order incorporating the above 2 matters.

9.HCMP 785

9.1As I have acceded to the registration of the Relevant Part, I will make an order in terms of the amended draft order §§1 and 2 annexed to the letter of HD Hyundai’s solicitors dated 26 August 2025, to state specifically that the Mareva injunction granted is in aid of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Proceedings. That letter has also addressed a number of queries raised at the Adjourned Hearing, including issues of service on Li. I will also make an order that the costs of HCMP 785 be to HD Hyundai, to be taxed if not agreed.

Mr Jin PAO, SC leading Mr Byron CHIU instructed by Messrs. Reynolds Porter Chamberlain on 11 June 2025 and Messrs. White & Case on 26 August 2025, for the Applicant in HCRE 84/2024 and the Plaintiff in HCMP 785/2024

The Respondent HCRE 84/2024 and the Defendant in HCMP 785/2024, acting in person, being absent